Michelle Ritter is a Los Angeles tech entrepreneur who was both a business partner and romantic partner of former Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Ritter accused Schmidt of sexual assault, digital surveillance and taking control of their joint venture; Schmidt denied her claims. The state-court dispute was sent to arbitration, where a preliminary ruling reported in June 2026 found Ritter’s statement that Schmidt raped her false and ordered her to pay him $10.7 million. Ritter also filed a separate federal case challenging arbitration. The latest docket listing available for that federal case was retrieved June 22, 2026, so later developments are not confirmed here.
Who is Michelle Ritter?
Ritter is described by the Los Angeles Times as a Los Angeles technology entrepreneur and former business partner and romantic partner of Schmidt. The Times reported that they met in 2020, when Ritter was pursuing graduate degrees in law and business at Columbia University. They became involved in Steel Perlot, a business incubator that invested in startups. According to the Times, Schmidt invested about $100 million in a joint venture with Ritter, which later fell apart.
The phrase “toxic masculinity” in the original headline should not be mistaken for a court finding or a quoted legal claim. The allegations reported in the coverage concern sexual assault, alleged digital surveillance and a business dispute.
What did Ritter accuse Schmidt of?
In a November 2025 amended complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Ritter accused Schmidt of sexual assault, accessing her email and computer files through alleged digital surveillance, and taking the joint venture from her. She also alleged that Schmidt had described building a “backdoor” to Google servers with engineers that would allow access to Google accounts. These are claims Ritter made in legal filings, not facts established by a court in the reporting reviewed.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Ritter’s account of an alleged assault, quoted by the Los Angeles Times from a legal filing, was: “I clearly told him ‘no’ and tried to get him to stop, but I had learned that attempting to resist physically would be futile and make things worse.” That quotation conveys her allegation; it is not a judicial finding.
The amended complaint reportedly sought $100 million in damages. That was the amount Ritter sought, not an award.
Rank #2
How did Eric Schmidt respond?
Schmidt denied Ritter’s claims, according to the Los Angeles Times. His attorney, Patricia Glaser, characterized the lawsuit as false and defamatory and said it was an effort to avoid arbitration over a business dispute. The Times also quoted Glaser calling the allegations “fabricated pathetic allegations.” Those are statements by Schmidt’s counsel, not findings by a court or arbitrator.
What happened in the separate proceedings?
The dispute involves state-court proceedings that were sent to arbitration and a separate federal lawsuit challenging arbitration. They address different procedural questions and should not be treated as one case.
Windows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallCrashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteRank #3
| Proceeding | What it concerns | Status in the available reporting |
|---|---|---|
| Los Angeles Superior Court dispute and arbitration | Ritter’s effort to set aside a December 2024 financial settlement and arbitration agreement, along with the underlying claims. | In March 2026, Judge Michael Small sent the state-court dispute to arbitration. The Los Angeles Times reported in June that the arbitrator had issued a preliminary ruling against Ritter on her rape statement and ordered her to pay Schmidt $10.7 million. |
| Federal case, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California | A separate challenge to arbitration, filed by Ritter against Schmidt and other defendants. | Filed April 24, 2026, as case No. 2:2026cv04382. A Justia-hosted docket listing retrieved June 22, 2026, showed procedural filings and extensions through that date; it does not establish what happened afterward. |
What is the status of the arbitration ruling?
On June 2, 2026, the Los Angeles Times reported that retired Washington State Judge Beth Andrus, acting as arbitrator, had issued a preliminary decision finding Ritter’s rape statement false and ordering her to pay Schmidt $10.7 million in damages. The Times reported Andrus’s statement: “I find that Ritter’s statement that she was raped by Schmidt to be false.”
The ruling was described as preliminary. It should not be called a final judgment based on that report alone. The same Times report said Ritter’s separate federal case challenging arbitration was pending.
Quick Recap
Rank #4
Timeline of the dispute
- 2020: The Los Angeles Times reported that Ritter and Schmidt met while she was pursuing graduate degrees at Columbia University and later became partners in a technology venture.
- December 2024: The parties signed a financial settlement and arbitration agreement, according to the Times’ March 2026 report. The Times’ November 2025 report said Ritter had earlier sought a domestic-violence restraining order and withdrew it after reaching the settlement.
- September and November 2025: Ritter filed a state-court case seeking to set aside the settlement. Her November amended complaint included the sexual-assault, surveillance and business allegations.
- March 2026: Judge Small sent the state-court dispute to arbitration. The Times reported that he concluded a 2022 federal law invoked by Ritter did not apply because the arbitration agreement was signed after the alleged conduct.
- April 24, 2026: Ritter filed the separate federal lawsuit in the Central District of California.
- June 2, 2026: The Los Angeles Times reported the arbitrator’s preliminary decision and $10.7 million order.
What is known—and what remains unresolved?
- Ritter’s accusations and Schmidt’s denial are competing positions; the allegations should not be presented as established facts.
- The March 2026 state-court action sent the dispute to arbitration. That procedural ruling is distinct from deciding whether the allegations are true.
- The arbitrator’s decision was described as preliminary in the June 2026 Los Angeles Times report, not as a final award or court judgment.
- The federal lawsuit challenges arbitration and is separate from the state-court matter. The available Justia-hosted docket listing was last retrieved June 22, 2026; subsequent filings or rulings are not verified here.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
